Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 N. Akiya
Internet-Draft                                       Big Switch Networks
Updates: 7110 (if approved)                                   G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track                            C. Pignataro
Expires: October 15, 2015                                  Cisco Systems
                                                            L. Andersson
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                                  Huawei
                                                          April 13, 2015

  Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
             draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02

Abstract

   The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
   Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to
   be used in the MPLS echo reply.  This document updates the "Reply via
   Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode value to easily indicate the reverse
   LSP.  This document also adds an optional TLV which can carry ordered
   list of Reply Mode values.

   This document updates RFC7110.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 15, 2015.

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Problem Statements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Reply via Specified Path Update . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Reply Mode Order TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Relations to Other LSP Ping/Trace Features  . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Reply Path TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.1.1.  Example 1: Reply Mode Order TLV Usage with Reply Path
               TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.2.  Example 2: Reply Mode Order TLV Usage with Reply Path
               TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Proxy LSP Ping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.1.  Proxy LSR Sending an MPLS Echo Request  . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.2.  Proxy LSR Sending an MPLS Proxy Ping Reply  . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  New Reply Mode Order TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Reply Mode Order TLV Beneficial Scenarios  . . . . .  11
     A.1.  Incorrect Forwarding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.2.  Non-Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Scenario  . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

1.  Introduction

   The MPLS LSP Ping, described in [RFC4379], allows an initiator LSR to
   encode instructions (Reply Mode) on how a responder LSR should send
   the response back to the initiator LSR.  [RFC7110] also allows the
   initiator LSR to encode a TLV (Reply Path TLV) which can instruct the
   responder LSR to use specific LSP to send the response back to the
   initiator LSR.  Both approaches are powerful as they provide the
   ability for the initiator LSR to control the return path.

   However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for an initiator LSR
   to select a valid return path to encode in the MPLS LSP echo request
   packets.  If the initiator LSR does not select a valid return path,
   the MPLS LSP echo reply will not get back to the initiator LSR.  This
   results in a false failure of MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute operation.
   In an effort to minimize such false failures, different
   implementations have chosen different default return path encoding
   for different LSP types and LSP operations.  The problem with
   implementations having different default return path encoding is that
   the MPLS echo reply will not work in many cases, and the default
   value may not be the preferred choice by the operators.

   This document describes:

   o  In Section 2, further description of the problems;

   o  In Section 3, a solution to minimize false failures while
      accommodating operator preferences;

   o  In Section 4, relationships to other LSP Ping/Traceroute features;

   o  In Appendix A, examples of scenarios where the mechanism described
      in this document provides benefits.

   This documents updates [RFC7110] by allowing the usage of the Reply
   Mode value 5 (Reply via Specified Path) without including the Reply
   Path TLV.

2.  Problem Statements

   It is becoming increasingly difficult for implementations to
   automatically supply a workable return path encoding for all MPLS LSP
   Ping and Traceroute operations across all LSP types.  There are
   several factors which are contributing to this complication.

   o  Some LSPs have a control-channel, and some do not.  Some LSPs have
      a reverse LSP, and some do not.  Some LSPs have IP reachability in
      the reverse direction, and some do not.

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

   o  LSRs on some LSPs can have different available return path(s).
      Available return path(s) can depend on whether the responder LSR
      is a transit LSR or an egress LSR.  In case of a bi-directional
      LSP, available return path(s) on transit LSRs can also depend on
      whether LSP is completely co-routed, partially co-routed or
      associated (i.e., LSPs in the two directions are not co-routed).

   o  MPLS echo request packets may incorrectly terminate on an
      unintended target, which can have different available return
      path(s) than the intended target.

   o  The MPLS LSP Ping operation is expected to terminate on egress
      LSR.  However, the MPLS LSP Ping operation with specific TTL
      values and MPLS LSP Traceroute operation can terminate on both
      transit LSR(s) and the egress LSR.

   Except for the case where the responder LSR does not have an IP route
   back to the initiator LSR, it is possible to use the "Reply via an
   IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet (2)" Reply Mode value in all cases.  However,
   some operators are preferring control-channel and reverse LSP as
   default return path if they are available, which is not always the
   case.

   When specific return path encoding is supplied by users or
   applications, then there are no issues in choosing the return path
   encoding.  When specific return path encoding is not supplied by
   users or applications, then implementations use extra logic to
   compute, and sometimes guess, the default return path encodings.  If
   a responder LSR receives an MPLS echo request containing return path
   instructions which cannot be accommodated due to unavailability, then
   the responder LSR often drops such packets.  This results in the
   initiator LSR not receiving the MPLS LSP echo reply packets back.
   This consequence may be acceptable for failure cases (e.g., broken
   LSPs) where the MPLS echo request terminated on unintended target.
   However, the initiator LSR not receiving back MPLS echo reply
   packets, even when the intended target received and verified the
   requests, is not desirable as false failures will be conveyed to
   users.

   Many operators prefer some return path(s) over others for specific
   LSP types.  To accommodate this, implementations may default to
   operator preferred return path (or allow default return path to be
   configured) for a specific operation.  However, if the sender of MPLS
   echo request knew that preferred return path will not be available at
   the intended target node, then it is not very beneficial to use a
   Reply Mode corresponding to preferred return path (i.e., the sender
   of the MPLS echo request will not receive the MPLS echo reply in the
   successful case).  What would be beneficial, for a given operation,

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

   is for the sender of the MPLS echo request to determine which return
   path(s) can and cannot be used ahead of time.

   This document adds one Reply Mode value to describe the reverse LSP,
   and one optional TLV to describe an ordered list of reply modes.
   Based on operational needs, the TLV can describe multiple Reply Mode
   values in a preferred order to allow the responder LSR to use the
   first available Reply Mode from the list.  This eliminates the need
   for the initiator LSR to compute, or sometimes guess, the default
   return path encoding.  And that will result in simplified
   implementations across vendors, and result in improved usability to
   fit operational needs.

3.  Solution

   This document updates "Reply via Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode to
   easily indicate the reverse LSP.  This document also adds an optional
   TLV which can carry ordered list of reply modes.

3.1.  Reply via Specified Path Update

   Some LSP types are capable of having related LSP in reverse
   direction, through signaling or other association mechanisms.
   Examples of such LSP types are RSVP LSPs and TP LSPs.  This document
   uses the term "Reverse LSP" to refer to the LSP in reverse direction
   of such LSP types.  Note that this document restricts the scope of
   "Reverse LSP" applicability to those reverse LSPs which are capable
   and allowed to carry the IP encapsulated MPLS echo reply.

   [RFC7110] has defined the Reply Mode "Reply via Specified Path (5)"
   which allows the initiator LSR to instruct the responder LSR to send
   the MPLS echo reply message on the reverse LSP.  However, the
   instruction also requires the initiator LSR to include the "Reply
   Path TLV" with the B bit (Bidirectional bit) set in the Flags field.
   Additionally, [RFC7110] defines the usage of the "Reply via Specified
   Path (5)" Reply Mode without inclusion of the "Reply Path TLV" to be
   invalid.

   This document updates the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode
   as follows:

   o  The usage of the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" without inclusion
      of a "Reply Path TLV" is no longer invalid.

   o  The usage of the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" without inclusion
      of a "Reply Path TLV" implies the reverse LSP.  In other words,
      the usage of the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" without inclusion
      of a "Reply Path TLV" has the same semantics as the usage of the

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

      "Reply via Specified Path (5)" with inclusion of a "Reply Path
      TLV" with the B bit set in the Flags field.

   Note that the reverse LSP is in relation to the last FEC specified in
   the Target FEC Stack TLV.

   When a responder LSR is using this Reply Mode, transmitting MPLS echo
   reply packet MUST use IP destination address of 127/8 for IPv4 and
   0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6.

3.2.  Reply Mode Order TLV

   This document also introduces a new optional TLV to describe list of
   Reply Mode values.  The new TLV will contain one or more Reply Mode
   value(s) in preferred order.  The first Reply Mode value is the most
   preferred and the last Reply Mode value is the least preferred.
   Following rules apply when using Reply Mode Order TLV.

   1.  The Reply Mode Order TLV MAY be included in MPLS echo request.

   2.  The Reply Mode Order TLV MUST NOT be included in MPLS echo reply.

   3.  The Reply Mode field of an MPLS echo request MUST be set to a
       valid value even when supplying the Reply Mode Order TLV.  The
       initiator LSR SHOULD set the Reply Mode field of MPLS echo
       request to a value that corresponds to a return path which most
       likely to be available, in case the responder LSR does not
       understand the Reply Mode Order TLV.

   4.  If a responder LSR understands the Reply Mode Order TLV but the
       TLV is not valid (due to conditions described in the items 6, 8
       and 9 immediately below), then the responder LSR MUST only use
       the value described in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo
       request.

   5.  If a responder LSR understands the Reply Mode Order TLV and the
       TLV is valid, then the responder LSR MUST consider the Reply Mode
       values described in the TLV and MUST NOT use the value described
       in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo request.  In other
       words, a valid Reply Mode Order TLV overrides the value specified
       in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo request.

   6.  Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode value,
       and SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values.

   7.  A Reply Mode value, except for Reply Mode value 5 (Reply via
       Specified Path), MUST NOT be repeated (i.e., MUST NOT appear
       multiple times) in the Reply Mode Order TLV.

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

   8.  The Reply Mode value 5 (Reply via Specified Path) MAY be included
       more than once in the Reply Mode Order TLV.  However, in such
       case a Reply Path TLV MUST be included for all instances of the
       Reply Mode value 5 included in the Reply Mode Order TLV.  In
       other words, 3 instances of the Reply Mode value 5 in the Reply
       Mode Order TLV will require 3 instances of the Reply Path TLVs.

   9.  The Reply Mode value 1 (Do not reply) MUST NOT be used in the
       Reply Mode Order TLV.

   If a responder LSR receives a Reply Mode Order TLV which does not
   comply to the rules described above, then the responder LSR MUST
   ignore the Reply Mode Order TLV.

   The responder LSR is to select the first available return path in
   this TLV.  Reply Mode value corresponding to the selected return path
   MUST be set in Reply Mode field of MPLS echo reply to communicate
   back to the initiator LSR which return path was chosen.

   The format of the TLV is as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Reply Mode Order TLV Type     |          Length               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~ Reply mode 1  | Reply mode 2  | Reply mode 3  | Reply mode 4  ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                       Figure 1 Reply Mode Order TLV

   This is a variable length optional TLV.  Each Reply Mode field is 1
   octet.

4.  Relations to Other LSP Ping/Trace Features

4.1.  Reply Path TLV

   [RFC7110] has defined that the "Reply Path TLV" can include Sub-TLVs
   describing multiple FECs, from which the responder LSR can choose the
   FEC to send the MPLS echo reply message.  [RFC7110] has also defined
   that Sub-TLVs, within the "Reply Path TLV", describing FECs for
   return paths SHOULD be ignored when the B bit is set in the Flags
   field.  Therefore, when the initiator LSR wants to use the Reply Mode
   Order TLV to describe the reverse LSP and other FECs for return
   paths, then the initiator SHOULD include two "Reply via Specified
   Path (5)" Reply Mode values and two "Reply Path TLV" objects (one
   "Reply Path TLV" corresponding to each "Reply via Specified Path
   (5)").

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

   o  The reverse LSP is described by the "Reply via Specified Path (5)"
      Reply Mode value and the corresponding "Reply Path TLV" with the B
      bit set in the Flags field.  In this "Reply Path TLV", no Sub-TLVs
      are present.

   o  Other return FECs are described by the "Reply via Specified Path
      (5)" Reply Mode value and the corresponding "Reply Path TLV"
      describing the FECs for return paths.  In this "Reply Path TLV",
      the B bit is cleared in the Flags field.

4.1.1.  Example 1: Reply Mode Order TLV Usage with Reply Path TLV

   If the initiator LSR was interested in encoding following return
   paths:

   1.  Reply via application level control channel

   2.  FEC X

   3.  FEC Y

   4.  Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet

   Then the MPLS echo request message is to carry:

   o  The Reply Mode Order TLV carrying Reply Modes {4, 5, 2}

   o  The Reply Path TLV carrying {FEC X, FEC Y}

   Described encoding of the Reply Mode Order TLV and the Reply Path TLV
   in the MPLS echo request message will result in the responder LSR to
   prefer "Reply via application level control channel (4)", followed by
   FEC X, FEC Y and then "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet (2)".

4.1.2.  Example 2: Reply Mode Order TLV Usage with Reply Path TLV

   If the initiator LSR was interested in encoding following return
   paths:

   1.  Reverse LSP

   2.  Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet

   3.  FEC X

   4.  FEC Y

   Then the MPLS echo request message is to carry:

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

   o  The Reply Mode Order TLV carrying Reply Modes {5, 2, 5}

   o  One Reply Path TLV with the B bit set.

   o  One Reply Path TLV carrying {FEC X, FEC Y}

   Described encoding of the Reply Mode Order TLV and the Reply Path TLV
   in the MPLS echo request message will result in the responder LSR to
   prefer the reverse LSP, followed by "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP
   packet (2)", FEC X and then FEC Y.

4.2.  Proxy LSP Ping

   The mechanism defined in this document will work with Proxy LSP Ping
   defined by [I-D.ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping].  The MPLS proxy ping
   request message can carry a Reply Mode value in the header and one or
   more Reply Mode values in the Reply Mode Order TLV.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that the Reply Mode 2 (Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet)
   be used in the Reply Mode field of the MPLS proxy ping request
   message.

4.2.1.  Proxy LSR Sending an MPLS Echo Request

   If the proxy LSR is sending an MPLS echo request, then the proxy LSR
   MUST copy following elements from the MPLS proxy ping request message
   to the MPLS echo request message.

   o  The Reply Mode field.

   o  The Reply Mode Order TLV.

   o  The Reply Path TLV(s).  If there are more than one Reply Path
      TLVs, then then order of them MUST be preserved when copying.

4.2.2.  Proxy LSR Sending an MPLS Proxy Ping Reply

   If the proxy LSR is sending an MPLS proxy ping reply, then it is
   RECOMMENDED that the Reply Mode Order TLV be ignored and the Reply
   Mode field in the MPLS proxy ping request message be used.

5.  Security Considerations

   Beyond those specified in [RFC4379] and [RFC7110], there are no
   further security measures required.

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  New Reply Mode Order TLV

   IANA is requested to assign a new TLV type value from the "TLVs" sub-
   registry within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
   (MPLS)" registry, for the "Reply Mode Order TLV".

   The new TLV Type value should be assigned from the range
   (32768-49161) specified in [RFC4379] section 3 that allows the TLV
   type to be silently dropped if not recognized.

     Type   Meaning                            Reference
     ----   -------                            ---------
     TBD1   Reply Mode Order TLV               this document

7.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Santiago Alvarez and Faisal Iqbal for
   discussions which motivated creation of this document.  Authors would
   also like to thank Sam Aldrin, Curtis Villamizar, Ross Callon,
   Jeffrey Zhang, Jeremy Whittaker, Mustapha Alissaoui, Qin Wu, Jie Dong
   and Adrian Farrel for providing valuable comments to influence the
   contents of the draft.

8.  Contributing Authors

   Shaleen Saxena
   Brocade
   Email: ssaxena@brocade.com

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              February 2006.

   [RFC7110]  Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., Jounay, F., and S. Delord,
              "Return Path Specified Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping",
              RFC 7110, January 2014.

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping]
              Swallow, G., Lim, V., and S. Aldrin, "Proxy MPLS Echo
              Request", draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05 (work in
              progress), March 2015.

Appendix A.  Reply Mode Order TLV Beneficial Scenarios

   This section lists examples of how the Reply Mode Order TLV can
   benefit.

A.1.  Incorrect Forwarding Scenario

   A network has a following LSP, and the LSP has a control channel.

     A------B------C------D------E
                          |
                          |
                          F

     Forward Paths: A-B-C-D-E

           Figure 2: Incorrect Forwarding

   Imagine that D is incorrectly label switching to F (instead of E).
   In this scenario, LSP Traceroute with "Reply via application level
   control channel (4)" will result in following result.

      Success (Reply from B)
      Success (Reply from C)
      Success (Reply from D)
      Timeout...
      Complete

   This is because F does not have a control channel to send the MPLS
   echo reply message.  With the extension described in this document,
   same procedures can be performed with the Reply Mode Order TLV
   carrying {4, 2}. When LSP Traceroute is issued, then following output
   may be displayed without any unnecessary timeout.

      Success (Reply from B, Reply Mode: 4)
      Success (Reply from C, Reply Mode: 4)
      Success (Reply from D, Reply Mode: 4)
      FEC Mismatch (Reply from F, Reply Mode: 2)
      Complete

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

   The result provides more diagnostic information to the initiator LSR,
   and without any delay (i.e. timeout from one or more downstream
   LSRs).

A.2.  Non-Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Scenario

   A network has a following bidirectional LSP where the forward LSP and
   the reverse LSP are not fully co-routed.

              +----C------D----+
             /                  \
     A------B                    G------H
             \                  /
              +----E------F----+

     Forward Paths: A-B-C-D-G-H (upper path)
     Reverse Paths: H-G-F-E-B-A (lower path)

           Figure 3: Non-Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP

   Some operators may prefer and configure the system to default the
   Reply Mode to indicate the reverse LSP when MPLS echo request
   messages are sent on bidirectional LSPs.  Without extensions
   described in this document, following behaviors will be seen:

   o  When LSP Ping is issued from A, reply will come back on the
      reverse LSP from H.

   o  When LSP Traceroute is issued from A, reply will come back on the
      reverse LSP from B, G and H, but will encounter a timeout from C
      and D as there are no reverse LSP on those nodes.

   o  When LSP Ping with specific TTL value is issued from A, whether a
      timeout will be encountered depends on the value of the TTL used
      (i.e. whether or not MPLS echo request terminates on a node that
      has reverse LSP).

   One can argue that the initiator LSR can automatically generate a
   same MPLS echo request with different Reply Mode value to those nodes
   that timeout.  However, such mechanism will result in extended time
   for the entire operation to complete (i.e. multiple seconds to
   multiple minutes).  This is undesirable, and perhaps unacceptable if
   the "user" is an application.

   With the extension described in this document, same procedures can be
   performed with the Reply Mode Order TLV carrying {5, 2}. When LSP
   Traceroute is issued, then following output may be displayed without
   any unnecessary timeout.

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft     LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification         April 2015

      Success (Reply Mode: 5)
      Success (Reply Mode: 2)
      Success (Reply Mode: 2)
      Success (Reply Mode: 5)
      Success (Reply Mode: 5)
      Complete

Authors' Addresses

   Nobo Akiya
   Big Switch Networks

   Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com

   George Swallow
   Cisco Systems

   Email: swallow@cisco.com

   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com

   Loa Andersson
   Huawei

   Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

Akiya, et al.           Expires October 15, 2015               [Page 13]